Yeah, both sides amiright?

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        The turnout of Democratic voters was lower than previous elections. There are too many variables at play to claim anything definitively, but it’s safe to assume that the number of voters who abstained due to the issue was more than zero.

        If a conclusion is going to be drawn about whether the whole genocide topic had a tangible effect on the outcome, it’s important to consider those as well as the protest votes.

        • futatorius@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 month ago

          I really want to see a credible analysis showing how many of those non-votes were due to abstentions versus voter-suppression mesaures such as electoral-roll purges, overcrowded polling stations, fake challenges at the polls, etc.

        • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          For something like 30 years running, the real winner of the election was non-voters. When other countries have this level of boycott and the US doesn’t like them, they get called “regimes” in need of “democraticization”.

      • prole
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I believe there was real, grassroots protests, and the people who were there genuinely, were easily manipulated by those who were there maliciously into literally fighting for the opposite thing that they wanted.

        It would be impressive if it weren’t so goddamn depressing.

        Online, on the other hand, agents provocateur everywhere. Plus more useful idiots who are now the ones who will either be an adult and admit they fucked up, or double and triple down on their mistake in order to preserve their ego (somewhat understandably so, as they seem to actually give a shit about Palestinian lives and now have to live with the role they played in escalating the genocide).

        And to be clear, I consider myself an ardent supporter of Palestine in the genocide Israel is perpetrating. Which is exactly why I did the one small thing in my power that could have possibly done something to reduce that damage and not escalate the genocide (btw, a lot of people here are going to find out that genocide ≠ genocide ≠ genocide. In the worst way possible). And that was to vote for Harris.

        If you want to find out what’s coming, just pick up a history book for once. A couple weeks too late, but at least you’ll learn why you fucked up.

        • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 month ago

          You cannot call yourself an ardent supporter of Palestine while speaking about pro-Palestinian protesters like they are aliens or well-meaning idiots manipulated by unspecified malevolent forces. Anyone that is ardently pro-Palestinisn is at the protests, organizing actions, and speaks as a member of the community, not separate from it.

          Please take some time to ask yourself whether you have the experience and knowledge required to talk on this topic.

      • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        It was pretty obvious most Americans don’t care about Gaza, and didn’t let it influence their voting.

        I’ve seen polling prior to the election that asked people about their most important issues when voting.

        https://news.gallup.com/poll/651719/economy-important-issue-2024-presidential-vote.aspx

        The Republican voter’s top issues were the economy, immigration, terrorism/nation security, crime and taxes.

        Meanwhile, the Democrat top issues were US democracy, the supreme court, abortion, healthcare and education.

        Basically, foreign policy was a non issue for voters. Gaza did not factor into most voter’s decisions at all. And of course it doesn’t. When you’re worried about putting food on the table, you can’t afford rent, your bodily autonomy is at stake and your country is going to shit… you’d be silly to vote based on Gaza. Because that’s directly voting against your own interests. Gaza should not have been a large talking point or even at all.

        I think the reason a lot of Democrats stayed home was basically candidate fatigue. They just didn’t feel like voting for a candidate so boring and faceless. And she didn’t have nearly enough time to turn things around. Why bother voting when democratic leadership clearly isn’t taking voters and their actual issues seriously?

    • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yes, we are seeing that in spades in this comment section.

      After 13 months of genocide backed by your candidates, where you were all out here sharing false lesser evil logic and other thought-terminating clichés about how you need to tolerate genocide to win, well, your candidate lost. Your strategy failed. Really, the party’s strategy failed, as your political role relative to its decisions is someone who makes no demands and can be largely ignored.

      Are you taking this time to reflect on how you were wrong? That maybe you shouldn’t support genocide or project a false pretense of political understanding when what’s underneath is really just right wing Democrat Reddit memes?

      Nope, nothing is ever the fault of the party or its most dedicated soldiers. The party cannot fail, it can only be failed, right?

      Blue MAGA.